Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @04:27PM
from the we-know-what-you-did-over-the-border dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, part of the Department of Defense, is using satellites to track the activities of drug cartels operating along the US-Mexican border. The agency is supplying photos to pinpoint Mexican narcotics operations and anticipate smuggling attempts into the United States. During a conference on border security held in Phoenix last week, Scott Zikmanis said his agency already has supplied some data to the El Paso Intelligence Center, a federal clearinghouse for investigating drug cartels. Any border-security surveillance will be done over Mexico, not the US says Zikmanis because a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, strictly limits US military operations on American soil unless such operations are authorized by Congress. Civil rights attorneys question the use of satellite technology in law enforcement. 'We are in the midst of a really dangerous time in terms of technology,' said Chris Calabrese, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The idea that such a powerful tool might be turned on US citizens is really troubling.'"

Is drug smuggling really such a big problem to require the use of military resources? It seems like something like this falls much more into the realm of law enforcement than something the military should get involved in.

I know that it is sometimes called the war on drugs, but is it really so bad that it deserves to be called a war?

To those that don't know.. phoenix/tucson are seeing record kidnappings and murders. These are being primarily carried out by drug cartels. CNN and Fox have been talking about it, which makes this a political move to calm the masses.

Mexican drug smugglers are not limited to cannabis. They also move an enormous amount of cocaine and meth. While legalizing cannabis should have been done years ago already, meth is so clearly destroying the heartland of America (and even making inroads into big cities) that legalization and taxation is not an option.

Because then we'll need a new "threat to the American way" to rile up the idiots so they can be politically manipulated -- illegal Mexican immigrants won't be usable for that anymore.

Who would we blame for taking our jobs? Who would we blame for the drug trade? Who would we pay terrible wages to labor in our fields and in our kitchens -- they'd need to be paid a decent wage if we annexed Mexico!

but you don't go from boy scout to raving meth head without some outside motive

Are you an expert on addiction? On the physiological and psychological pathways to addiction?

No? Didn't think so.

Plenty of people have gone from boy scout to raving meth head. Addiction to meth, like addiction to alcohol, often results in comorbidity with other psychological diseases (like chronic depression, different types of schizophrenia, etc). It's a bit of chicken-or-egg problem, but modern research suggests that not only can meth and/or alcohol addiction exacerbate existing pysch disorders, but they can cause disorders in people with no prior history of mental disease.

Anything that screws with your neurotransmitters can screw with your mental health.

Alcohol is legal. Operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not legal. Why would you ever assume that just because drugs became legal that operating a vehicle under their influence would suddenly be OK?

You're confusing the issue with facts. So long as the media reports that guns are going to drug smugglers who are killing women and children, the government gets their justification to clamp down on gun rights.

(I do think that there are some people who might feel like maybe the time they spent in prison was a bit unjust when they get out because the law was changed because it was decided that putting people in prison for the things they did was unjust; they might not be entirely satisfied with just getting out)

And? No really, and?

You realize almost no one is in prison for life without parole due to drugs... they're going to get out eventually, and regardless of whether the law has changed, they are probably going to see their incarceration as unjust.

So what are you implying will happen? They'll riot through the streets until they get... whatever it is people who were unjustly imprisoned are supposed to get? Because surely ending right back in prison for justified reasons is what they'll be after. But hey let's say that whatever it is you're trying to say will happen is true. And this is why you don't want drug offenders released. So does this mean we can't ever release them?

Oh and they'll need jobs, like everyone else who gets out of prison. So, we better keep them incarcerated?

You really have to do a better job of explaining what these "considerable difficulties" you see are, because you're not making much sense.

Alcohol destroys lives too. We tried prohibition, and found that it only made things worse. Given that anyone who wants meth can get it anyway, why not legitimize the trade, make a profit off of it, and treat those with a problem medically instead of criminally?

Yeah. Pass a law that creates the mechanism and funding to effectively enforce that law. There is a big difference between just saying something is illegal and actually stopping people from doing it. Personally, I do not think lawmakers should be passing laws that they have no intention of actually fully enforcing.

They were not, by and large, falsely imprisoned. They were found guilty and sentenced according to the law. I'm sure there are a few that are in there on questionable evidence, but the overwhelming majority of them were caught, tried, and sentenced as the system is supposed to work.

That you do not agree with the law does not make it false imprisonment. I believe that a good portion of them should be let out, and that certain uses should be decriminalized (if not outright legalized), but that's a far cry from accusations of false imprisonment.

That said, yes, pot heads shouldn't be in jail. But... Get to drugs much harder than that and they should be. Harder, more addictive, drugs add to crime, and not just drug crimes. Hard drug users are a deeper social problem than the mere moral crime of marijuana use.

Where is the evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies that shows drugs cause deep social problems? Oh and don't forget to include alcohol, I bet it causes a lot of problems.

Employers like having a supply of illegal labor that they can, in effect, abuse. Until there is enough of a penalty for hiring illegals that it makes having easily exploitable labor not worth it, people will continue to hire illegals.